BAA plc will immediately over sell it by oferring more slots than they can handle at the terminals, taxiways and stands (as they have done with the two primaries). So the capacity would have been expanded but the capacity issue would remian the same.

This is exactly where the problem lies - let LHR have a third runway and it will fill up. Yet Boris island might only have a similar capacity to an expanded Heathrow because it faces its own internal constraints too.

However, we shouldn't confuse real demand with the natural ability of hubs to bloat themselves because as they expand they bring in more routes and thus more connections so they expand further. As this expansion is fed by the less valuable transfer traffic, it massively over-inflates the true value such a hub would have to London Plc.

In terms of the direct demand for point to point routes into London as a destination and out of London as an origin, we still have a little bit more room.

The airlines have invested millions acquiring slots, so they aren't going, especially those recently transferred over from LGW

FDF - We both know LHR isn't going anywhere just yet, I was just saying what would happen if it closed. In that respect, Silver is right about it becoming a major redevelopment zone, but he is wrong about its value for change of use from inherently complex and highly customies airport terminal.

I've always felt the compulsory purchase issue would be the biggest stumbling block to making LHR close. Now as for slots - how would you transfer an asset who's value depends on there being congestion at the tangible asset that the airport is?

How can you transfer these over to the new airport?

Scenarios:

* New airport opens but weak demand in industry means loads more space than needed, so no value in slots.
* New airport opens, but LHR never closes. BA stay, some other airlines move, so no pressure for slots.
* Everything goes to plan - airport opens on time and even on budget and then LHR closes the next day. From a passenger point of view, it all looks very smooth. As the new hub somehow manages to keep the PSC to within 30% of LHR, it is still attractive and it grows, thus creating pressure for slots, which must be purchased. But who is going to operate the new airport? Unlikely to be BAA / Ferrovial who don't seem to have anything like the cash needed. So BA shareprice dives as the value of their slots is wiped out and they have to buy new ones.

I can see a few problems here, no wonder BA want to stay put so badly!

I think thats stretching things if we include daily flights to the Isle of Aggis or downtown Balamory etc

Oh I am sorry, are these people not allowed to be part of the UK? Exactly how well connected is East Anglia into the UK domestic network? GLA puts Scotland one stop from the UK, ie SOU-GLA-BRR with Loganair, believe me there's a demand.

Manchester BE Leeds-Bradford BD East Midlands WW Birmingham BE Cardiff BE Bristol EZY Newquay BE / LC Exeter BE Norwich BE / LC London LHR BA London LGW BA EZY London LTN EZY London LCY BA Southampton BE

I make that 25 non stop domestic UK routes, it goes up if you add in

Jersey BE Isle of Man BE / LC

You might snidely laugh at what Loganair does but their ability to work with competitors / partners to connect the Highlands and Islands to the rest of the country is classic hub and spoke. Something we would all love LHR to be able to do !

Paxboy, not sure what happens if an airport exceeds its movements limit, but imagine there would be fines to pay. LHR has not yet exceeded its limit but is perilously close at 478,000. Guess we’ll find out soon?

Jabird, there would be no money for a compulsory purchase of LHR. Any government wanting to support a Shivering/SILVER-ing sands airport (and that is a highly contentious proposition), will need to do so by paying for transport links, not by buying off Ferrovial.

As for slots, there would be no financial value in slots at SILVER-ing sands if it is as big as Silver would like it to be. He envisages that there would be room enough for the much needed commuter/feeder flights from several UK airports that are missing from LHR, so it would have to be as big or bigger than LHR.

Runway expansion at LHR would be similar to that at FRA, or MAN. Slot value is scarcity value. Say that airline A sells/leases a LHR slot to airline B. B pays A, no money goes to the airport owners or to the government. With a third/fourth runway, this market would be eliminated and would open up all sorts of possibilities. Not convinced that slot availability would adversely affect the BA share price. After all, they are one of the biggest supporters of LHR expansion.

Three points need to be made.

First, it would be very difficult to force airlines to move airports because UK airports are privately owned having been sold off in the 1980s. Only a handful of municipally owned airports remain, MAN for example, and even that is set up as a company (with several councils being the shareholders). Most countries have publicly owned airports, even where they are privately operated, making it easier to order the airlines to move if required.

Second, the construction of Silver Airport would have to be paid for so that shareholders can recoup their investment. Therefore it is likely that airport charges will be much higher than at LHR and this will not encourage carriers to move there.

Third, consider these examples from all over the world going back to the 1940s:

Notice any trends? In the majority of cases where new airports have opened, supposedly as a replacement, the original has remained open, in either a diminished or domestic-only role.

The one exception is Mirabel. Airlines directed there from Dorval stopped Montreal flights rather than move there. Of course the “Bloc Quebecois” was riding high and this would have had a bearing on this. Potential secession issues in Quebec at that time created much uncertainty, resulting in the “flight” (pardon the pun) of business, commerce, etc., to Toronto. This eventually cost Montreal its position as Canada’s number one city.

These airports were publicly owned at the time as were most of the “flag carrier” airlines based at each, enabling governments to dictate policy. these conditions that no longer apply in the UK.

So, based on these precedents, the balance of probability overwhelmingly suggests that LHR will not close if Silver Island is built.

Silver, you’re being way too subjective! All your arguments appear to be based on a particular loathing of LHR.

Not at all. If you go back through my posts I list all of your 1-10 points aout LHR in some detail. When taken together, these points result in the 'subjective' opinion I have of LHR. Its just an awful international hub.

Oh, and if Silver-Boris does get built, LHR WILL close. It has to.

Quote:

Fairdeal

Jabird, there would be no money for a compulsory purchase of LHR.

You have this the wrong way around. It is the purchase and sale of LHR as an industrial/residential site that would pay for Silver-Boris. That site is a goldmine, and anyway, it would HAVE to be redeveloped to maintain the wealth of that area. If it staggered on as a third-rate international airport, the whole area would decline. But as a new Silicon Thames Valley, it would boom like no other area in the UK.

I totally agree (and have said so earlier in this thread) that it would be difficult to imagine LHR closing. However, in respect to the "hub" thread, how many of the other airports on your list had substantial surface rail access at the time of closure? This would make the existing LHR site more attractive to developers, but they'd still have the problem of what to do with the terminals. There are examples of station sheds that have been re-used - e.g. Manchester GMEX (or Central), or Orsay in Paris. Why not - big space, nice roof, just block each end and adapt. What is the alternative use for long corridors, zones blocked off by security measures and jetways?

Silver, I put it to you that your notion of the LHR site being the basis of your island airport is even more of a fantasy than the airport itself. I don't doubt that the site could be redeveloped, if someone taps Justine Greening on the shoulder and tells her HS2 needs to enable a fast link to the new airport and it also needs to link back to the places currently relying on LHR.

Right now though, given the density of the site (1000ha compared to 14,000ha for DEN), it cannot possibly be worth more closed than it is open.

That's 15 versus Glasgow's 25, all of which are in the above Glasgow list save Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Gurensey and Inverneess, so sorry, but that's an awful lot more domestic connectivity than MAN regardless of spin.

It also shows that London is missing some major connectivity from the likes of GCI / JER / IOM / INV, unlikely to be connected by rail.....

not sure what happens if an airport exceeds its movements limit, but imagine there would be fines to pay. LHR has not yet exceeded its limit but is perilously close at 478,000. Guess we’ll find out soon?

I doubt it!! The limit was set so high that the place works (it is regularly reported) at 98/99% of capacity, so they don't need to break the limit as they have all that they want!

If the limit had been set at a level that allowed spare capacity for problems and reduced stacking (saving fuel/time/money)??? But that, of course, would mean the govts of 1980s and 90s actually having a policy about air traffic! We know that they didn't, any more than they had/have a policy for the railways.

Your tally of new airports wheere the old one did not close is MOST instructive and a detailed explanation behind all of those should be compulsory reading for Boris. But, since he doesn't care if the airport is built, he does not have to read anything!

Silver, with reference to the compulsory purchase of LHR, it's not “the wrong way around“. You imply that Ferrovial would willingly sell LHR or that it could be nationalised by the government in order just to close it.

You also state that “it is the purchase and sale of LHR as an industrial/residential site that would pay for Silver-Boris“ but do not explain (1) the mechanics and timing of transferring money from the owners of Silver Island to Ferrovial, (2) why on earth Ferrovial would accept it (it could never be enough!), and (3) how the Silver Island owners would have so much money sloshing around despite the expense of building the airport, and having no substantial income until the airport is up and running and successful.

To assume that it will all be funded by the government is fantasy. Your premise that Silvering Sands requires the closure of LHR to be successful is probably correct. That is the main reason it will never happen.

It just does not add up.

Jabird, good point about Sempang. It illustrates well that growth in civil aviation is always underestimated by governments, and has been for a long time, and not just in the UK.

BA, VS, but regrettably not BD would indeed face huge costs to move out of LHR, so why would they? As airports and airlines are privately owned businesses they will make decisions that favour their passengers and therefore their shareholders. Not surprisingly, that means staying put.

Ferrovial, also a private company, will also have shareholders’ interests at heart, and would move heaven and earth to ensure that airlines stay at LHR. The presence or possibility of Silver Island could, ironically, make LHR even more attractive to airlines!

Paxboy, think that the 480,000 ceiling was set years ago, perhaps back in the 1960s. Suspect that at the time, short-sighted functionaries never considered that the limit would ever be reached!

This was the time of the government’s ludicrous and damaging “second force” aviation policy, which was intended to promote growth at LGW at the expense of LHR, by building up LGW as a hub for a private UK airline.

Perhaps the “second force” policy was a forerunner of the JFK/EWR dual hub that works well in New York today, because of the availability of a continent's worth of domestic connectivity. Back in the UK, a succession of airlines were based at LGW: BUA, BCal, Laker, VS, etc.. VS only survived because it was able to move its hub to LHR. As a result of this policy, there was inadequate expansion at LHR when it was needed and led to the situation we find ourself in today.

At this time the “flag carrier” airlines, BEA and BOAC, and most major airports were government-owned, so they could dictate the base airports for each British carrier and the destinations they could fly to. Business and economics did not come into it at a time when fares were the same on all airlines and fixed by IATA. It was simple: first class fares were double those in ecomony. For example, South America and West Africa destinations were "given" to BUA ex LGW. BOAC ex-LHR was excluded from those routes.

Agree 100% with your comments about Boris, particularly the last sentence!

It illustrates well that growth in civil aviation is always underestimated by governments, and has been for a long time, and not just in the UK.

+

Quote:

A new out of town airport will be built, eventually.

Whilst I'm doubtful that the former will go on for ever (fuel costs, taxes, environmental concerns and so on), even if we do have growth to the tune of, say, +50% on current London capacity - 70m pax pa, this can still be met by the other airports in the London area. Whilst this isn't the perfect solution in terms of hubbing, it is still a solution and it is far more practical - just doesn't appeal to the big ego types, hence:

Quote:

Your tally of new airports wheere the old one did not close is MOST instructive and a detailed explanation behind all of those should be compulsory reading for Boris. But, since he doesn't care if the airport is built, he does not have to read anything!

Say what you like about Boris and his preference for big books with pictures in them over detailed technical documents (loads of us are like that too!). Are you really saying you don't think Boris cares less whether it gets built or not? Surely the first thing politicians look for when they reach high office is something that will give them a legacy. What bigger legacy than Boris Island Margaret Thatcher Intercontinental Airport - after all, one thing guaranteed is that she will be dead by then!

Well, politicians will continue to say that they want something done/built until after they are dead - by saying it in their memoire! Of course, if those nasty capitalists won't spend the money? If those terrible Tory henchmen who run the big companies won't invest in what is, plainly, a jolly good idea? Well, then at least Boris has clean hands.

It's like Blair supporting the Olympic bid. If they failed, he would have been cheered for helping them. If they won, he would not be there when the financial pigeons come home to roost.

It's like Blair supporting the Olympic bid. If they failed, he would have been cheered for helping them. If they won, he would not be there when the financial pigeons come home to roost.

The Olympics is pocket change compared to Boris Island. I remain doubtful about overall benefits, but it will give worldwide attention to London, and the net result will be more much needed development around Stratford.

With the new airport, you have a very real risk of billions being poured into nothing:

What happens if?

* Geologists get it wrong and it simply sinks in the mud. Either the commercial backers will need to go back to The City, or they will need a govt bailout promise from the start - and that is going to cause all kinds of political stink if it is promised as not costing the taxpayer a penny.
* Demand for flights fails to pick up from current levels, for numerous reasons already discussed? We're back to Mirabel.
* They can't get suitable purchase order for LHR to close. We might not quite be in Mirabel terrain, but you would basically have the throughput of LGW with the costs of KIX. So holding company goes under, bailed out again?

Even if all goes well, what's total investment in Olympics to date? £3-4bn. So multiple x10 for the airport project.

Also, politically, why take the risk? People love to slag off the Olympics because of the cost, but find me people who are actually against the very nature of the competition in the first place. A few extreme lefties who say competitive sport is a bad thing or it is too commercialised, or a few greenies going on about the carbon footprint - but that will be it.

Airports are obviously popular in a forum like this, but they also engage huge opposition. We've been so focussed on Silver's numbers not adding up (attempt 14 now Silver - please give us your proposed PSC) - that we've given little consideration to the huge local environmental objections this will create. Even if you plonk it right in the middle of the estuary, you still have the surface access problem and there's always going to be noise, even if much less than EGLL.